Module upgrades may not be likely, but I was responding to the first question which was:
"...I suspect there are better methods that won't break with a future version of IO::All." On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Conor Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Ben Tilly <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason to call the original DESTROY is so that if a future version of > > IO::All adds logic to the DESTROY, you will still run that new code. > > This is an excellent point, but it does not sound like surprise module > upgrades are a likely problem in Duane's world. > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
